The “polar vortex” that swept across much of the nation early this month knocked two North Texas power plants offline just as residents began turning up the heat and revving up power use. Grid operators fixed the problem, but not before warning consumers that they were a step away from issuing rolling blackouts.

With that, the weather added fuel to a high-stakes debate about the state’s electricity market and the demands of its soaring population.

Comment Policy

The Texas Tribune is pleased to provide the opportunity for you to share
your observations about this story. We encourage lively debate on the issues
of the day, but we ask that you refrain from using profanity or other
offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting
advertising, or wandering away from the topic at hand. To comment, you must
be a registered user of the Tribune, and your user name will be displayed.
Thanks for taking time to offer your thoughts.

Comments (14)

January 24, 2014 @ 7:23 a.m.

hans5162 hans

Private equity was salivating at the prospect of a competitive market in Texas and they put together Lucent, when gas was $10-12 per MCF and now it's $3. They made a big bet on coal plants and they bet wrong. Now they want government to skew the market to bail them out. Where are the TPPF/ AFP freedom and personal responsibility hypocrites when it comes to corporate handouts?

I haven't seen much incentive to curb energy use. My electric company, who I was previously very happy with, has recently started assessing a $9.95 fee each month I use less than 1000 kilowatt-hours, which is easy to do from November to April since I have a gas furnace and water heater.

I enjoy using less power — but it is kind of annoying to spend money on LED light bulbs and energy-efficient appliances only to be punished with surcharges for not using enough energy.

As an air conditioning contractor I can say these are wide open to hacks, Carrier has a setup that uses a stand alone wifi to prevent this, unless you don't mind the Russians launching a assault via your comfort control.......

Austin Water spends hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on public awareness to drive conservation efforts. Constituents comply, conservation sticks. To support it's bloated bureaucracy, Austin Water then raises rates to compensates for lost revenue. Such is the cycle of unnatural monopolies. Criminal.

if we dont want to pay for on demand power generation we consumers really only have 2 choices. use less power. or not have so many people. there are no other choices. not really. if we want to try to conserve power,then suppliers shouldn't be able to punish for us doing so. in the end it will keep them from having to build new plants. i doubt any one really wants to try the 2nd option do we? some may have the option of building a solar, wind or geo thermal generator for their homes. and while it will work pretty well during the summer (during high temperatures which seem to always have lots of sun). they are not exactly the cheapest or reliable. but unless we want to go back to a regulated market then these are your only options.

January 24, 2014 @ 4:23 p.m.

Rudy Gonzales

Texas and Texans do not have to cut back or curb ernegy use. ERCOT and the Republicans in Austin have failed the people after de-regulation and refusal to implement ERA clean air requirements. Energy producers have had too much influence in Austin. Some are hawking "free weekends" or "free nights" while still making enough to staff influence peddlers(lobbyist) in Austin.IF YOU DO NOT REGISTER TO VOTE AND DO NOT VOTE, OR ARE DENIED YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE, IT IS JUST LIKE VOTING FOR THE OPPOSITION!ELECTIONS DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES - LOCALLY - AT THE STATE LEVEL - AND NATIONALLY! Texas and America has suffered long enough!

January 24, 2014 @ 4:37 p.m.

Marita Mirzatuny

As we saw during the recent cold snaps, demand response plays an important role in keeping Texas’ lights on. Regardless of where you stand on the energy vs. capacity debate, an increased use of demand response in the ERCOT market is the most sensible and cost-effective option the PUC has at hand.

Demand response has several advantages as a solution to Texas’s energy crunch:

1. It’s cheaper than developing a new, polluting power plant;

2. It can respond faster than old, inefficient power plants (as we saw when power plants froze when called upon);

3. It lowers consumer electricity bills by moving electricity use to times when energy is less expensive;

4. And it doesn’t pollute the air or consume our much-needed water.

Not only does this technology increase reliability during extreme weather, but it also supports the efficiency of our current infrastructure, lowers customers’ energy bills and helps the environment.

Similar to what Colin Meehan said in the article, we need to open the door to competition in the state. It’s time demand response is expanded so that residential customers can benefit from this innovative technology, in addition to industrial electricity customers.

Glad to see the Tribune reporting on this important issue facing Texas, and the U.S. as a whole.

Would have been nice to some other alternative discussed than just demand response. Where is the discussion about smart meters and the smart grid. Real time pricing would have an even larger impact than demand response - people will cut their use if there are sufficient price signals. And to Adam Drew's comment - PUC should make minimum use charges illegal. This is the problem with the deregulated market - the retail electric providers just want to maximize profit, which means selling as much power as possible. There is absolutely no incentive for them to get behind conservation efforts.

I'm not an energy hog yet would be leery of an energy company messing with my personal settings on thermostats or other electrical devices during whatever they (or others) could define as a "demand response". I am also leery that (like all other systems involving paid services) those individuals and companies with influence will be able to buy protection from the discomfort of electrical disruption while others are shorted even more. In any event conservation in one's usage should be rewarded, not penalized. Who oversees this travesty??

January 25, 2014 @ 7:42 a.m.

E. Quote

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. (Adam Smith) How much attention (translated to mean subsidizes) should produces get?